The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 13 (2022), 392-398 p.
Kupianska A. M. «Separate opinion» as a unique independent genre of judicial discourse: practice of foreign courts
The article examines the main characteristics of a separate opinion of the judge as a unique independent genre of judicial discourse. It is emphasized that a special opinion of consent, or simply opinion, is declared in cases where the judge has no objection to the decision of the college itself and joins it, but either considers the above arguments or ways of resolving the legal dispute unsuccessful, or brings to argumentation additional consideration. This type of special opinion is characterized by greater freedom of expression of legal position in terms of content and arguments. It is noted that the constitutional justice of Ukraine formed a model of complete openness of a separate opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the highest degree of which is the publication of a separate opinion together with the decision. A separate opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is determined by such that should not be confidential. It is proposed to identify a special opinion of a judge of a collegial body as an optional, structural and functional element of a judgment that is entered into the text of a decision or attached to it in the form of a separate document that has no obligatory legal force, but exists in an inseparable logical, semantic and structural. The main court decision, which determines its content and context and is characterized by individual argumentation, emotionality, imagery and evaluation. A separate opinion is an expression of a position on an issue that has already been decided by the court. This is the cry of the soul about the fact that certain arguments of the judge were not reflected in the motivational part of the court decision, or he does not agree with the decisive part of it. Special opinion is a unique independent genre of judicial discourse, in which argumentation is achieved, on the one hand, by logic and appeal to the letter of the law, and on the other, by the use of various means of emotional linguistic influence. The Institute of Distinctive Opinions serves as a guarantor of judicial independence and enables judges to position themselves not only as a part of the discursive expert community, but also as a sovereign person, a carrier and translator of a subjective creative legal position.
Key words: a separate opinion of the judge, judicial discourse, constitutional justice, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, legal positions, court decisions, argumentation.
1. Kuibida, R., Syroid, O. (2013). Posibnyk iz napysannia sudovykh rishen. Kyiv: «Drim Art» [ukr.].
2. Slinko, T. M., Tkachenko, Ye. V. (2011). Pravova pryroda okremoi dumky suddi Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy. 11 [ukr.].
3. (2018) Okrema dumka: instrument vplyvu na sudovu praktyku chy pidryv lehitymnosti rishennia. Sudebno- juridicheskaja gazeta. 26 nojab. [ukr.].
4. Suetina, O. G., Serebriakova, S. V. (2020). The Types of Intertextual Connections in the Judicial Discourse. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS. 2020. 92.
5. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856. United States Supreme Court. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/60/393/
6. (1992) Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Vol. 1. San Diego, Cal.: Excellent Books.
7. (1999) Great American Court Cases. Vol. 3. Detroit: The Gale Group.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896. URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v_ferguson_(1896).
9. Abrams v. US, 1919. United States Supreme Court. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/616/.
10. The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia / eds. by T. Blackshield, M. Coper and G. Williams. Oxford University Press, 2001. URL: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/ acref/9780195540222.001.0001/acref-9780195540222
11. Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragmadialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Woll, P. (1981). Constitutional law: Cases and Comment. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
13. Lylak, D. (2011). Instytut okremoi dumky v konstytutsiinomu sudochynstvi (porivnialnyi analiz). Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. 4–5 [ukr.].
14. Vargas, D. (1984). Two types of legal discourse: Transitivity in American appellate opinions and casebooks. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 4, 1–3.
15. Langford, C. L. (2009). Toward a Genre of Judicial Dissent: Lochner and Casey as Exemplars. Communication Law Review. 9, 2.
16. Wierzbicka, A. (1983). Genry mowy. Tekst i zdanie. Zbiór studiów. Wrocław [polish].
17. Matusevych, L. M. (2017). Status katehorii «movlennievyi zhanr» u suchasnii linhvistytsi. Molodyi vchenyi.4.3 (44.3), kvit. [ukr.].
18. Batsevych, F. (2002). Terminolohiia komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky: aspekty dyskursyvnoho pidkhodu. Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu «Lvivska politekhnika». Ser.: «Problemy ukrainskoi terminolohii». 453 [ukr.].
19. Bush v. Gore. Supreme Court of the United States. 2020. URL: https://tile.loc.gov/storage
20. Bank of Cyprus UK Limited v Menelaou, 2015. The Supreme Court. URL: https://www.supremecourt.uk/ cases/uksc-2013-0171.html
21. The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2010. The Supreme Court. URL: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2009-0202.html
22. The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance Ltd and others, 2021. The Supreme Court. URL: https:// www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0177-judgment.pdf
23. Bent v. Platnick, 2020. Supreme advocacy. URL: https://supremeadvocacy.ca/2020/09/10/bent-v-platnick- 2020-scc-23-38374
24. Montréal (Ville) v. Octane Stratégie inc., 2019. URL: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2019/38066- 38073-eng.pdf
25. MacDonald v. Canada, 2020. URL: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18199/index.do
26. De Silva v. The Queen, 2019. URL: https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2020/AT04989-article.html
27. McPhillamy v. The Queen, 2018. URL: https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2018/AT04816-article.html
28. The Queen v. Beckett, 2015. URL: https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s94-2015/Beckett-SP.pdf
29. Carpenter v. US, 2018. Supreme Court of the United States. URL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf